Legal Opinion
Wirkkula v. Union Oil Co. of California
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Decided September 6, 1989No. CC87-2196; CA A50199PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtGraber, P. J.
Defendant Union Oil Company of California (Unocal) appeals a judgment that declared that its non-renewal of plaintiffs lease of a Unocal service station in Astoria was wrongful, because Unocal did not comply with the requirements of the lease or of the federal Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA) when it notified plaintiff of the nonrenewal. We affirm.
The trial court decided the case on cross-motions for summary judgment. There is no dispute about the controlling facts. Unocal either owns or leases from a third person the property on which the station stands. Plaintiff has operated the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Deerfield Commodities, Ltd. v. Nerco, Inc.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1985
- Davis v. Gulf Oil Corp.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1984
- Blankenship v. Atlantic Richfield Co.District Court, D. Oregon · 1979
- Kesselman v. Gulf Oil Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1979
- Clifford v. Smith Meat Co.Oregon Supreme Court · 1917
3Cited by5 opinions
- Chaney v. Shell Oil Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1992
- Razavi v. Amoco Oil Co.District Court, District of Columbia · 1993
- DuFresne's Auto Service, Inc. v. Shell Oil Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993
- Wirkkula v. Union Oil Co.Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
- Auto Service, Inc. v. Shell Oil CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1993